Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

What did you like/hate about AD&D 2nd Edition

124»

Comments

  • DwaaawffulDwaaawfful Member UncommonPosts: 62
    The original D&D was a killer concept, but way too full of holes.

    That's why AD&D happened.

    Unfortunately, AD&D was still full of holes (plus all kinds of impenetrable background info) ... and so 2nd Edition was born.

    This release coincided with the game breaking into the mainstream, and for my money it was a klutzy reworking of the far superior 1st edition.

    Likely TSR had more cash to play with, and likely they saw that the previous versions weren't glossy and snazzy enough for the 80s.

    So they sanitized the contents, threw in lots of pizzazz, and simplified the rules by making them more complex.

    Not my favourite.
    Torval
  • blamo2000blamo2000 Member RarePosts: 964
    AlBQuirky said:
    @blamo, my favorite system was Champions, now called H.E.R.O.(do I put another period here to end the sentence?). It has just basic powers and the fluff is all up to the player. An energy blast does Xd6 damage. How it looks, what its element is, and how they got it is all up to the player. I did wrankle a bit at D&D spell system where a fireball is a fireball is a fireball, so I see where you're coming from. Good points :)
    Champions is pretty awesome.  I also like Champions online.  I would like it a lot more if it was closer to the P&P version, but the game is still really good in my opinion.  I was surprised it wasn't more popular when it came out.
    AlBQuirky
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,582
    blamo2000 said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    @blamo, my favorite system was Champions, now called H.E.R.O.(do I put another period here to end the sentence?). It has just basic powers and the fluff is all up to the player. An energy blast does Xd6 damage. How it looks, what its element is, and how they got it is all up to the player. I did wrankle a bit at D&D spell system where a fireball is a fireball is a fireball, so I see where you're coming from. Good points :)
    Champions is pretty awesome.  I also like Champions online.  I would like it a lot more if it was closer to the P&P version, but the game is still really good in my opinion.  I was surprised it wasn't more popular when it came out.
    I tried Champions Online, but it was just far too short of the PnP for me to enjoy it. No character building points, no Arch Enemy (though I think they added something similar to this later?), no dependent NPCs, even the powers didn't feel the same. It felt like more of a City of Heroes copy than it did Champions tabletop. I even bought the damn box when it released!

    I have to admit, though, that I really didn't give the game a fighting chance :)
    blamo2000

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • blamo2000blamo2000 Member RarePosts: 964
    AlBQuirky said:
    blamo2000 said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    @blamo, my favorite system was Champions, now called H.E.R.O.(do I put another period here to end the sentence?). It has just basic powers and the fluff is all up to the player. An energy blast does Xd6 damage. How it looks, what its element is, and how they got it is all up to the player. I did wrankle a bit at D&D spell system where a fireball is a fireball is a fireball, so I see where you're coming from. Good points :)
    Champions is pretty awesome.  I also like Champions online.  I would like it a lot more if it was closer to the P&P version, but the game is still really good in my opinion.  I was surprised it wasn't more popular when it came out.
    I tried Champions Online, but it was just far too short of the PnP for me to enjoy it. No character building points, no Arch Enemy (though I think they added something similar to this later?), no dependent NPCs, even the powers didn't feel the same. It felt like more of a City of Heroes copy than it did Champions tabletop. I even bought the damn box when it released!

    I have to admit, though, that I really didn't give the game a fighting chance :)
    It had (if I am remembering correctly) a system where you created a "Nemesis" which had its own story-arc and missions, etc.  This was in the base game from the start, it just opened up around level 10 or so I think.  

    If you are between mmorpgs and looking for something new giving it a whirl now is still possible.  It has a decent sized community and I thought leveling up was a lot of fun.  But, your reasoning for not playing is 100% valid to me.  Its the reason I dislike a lot of games claiming to be based of a specific D&D system (Neverwinter and Sword Coast Legends as obvious examples).  
    AlBQuirky
  • alkarionlogalkarionlog Member EpicPosts: 2,935
    Ungood said:
    Galadourn said:
    By "beating the rules" I don't mean playing with the ruleset in mind or min/maxing attitude; I mean having a way to gauge your judgement and decisions in-game against an "objective" frame of reference.  As you very well said "a means to govern how we interact with the environment", I'm not suggesting anything different.
    This reminds me of a writers discussion I was involved with, and I want to clear this up, I am not some aspiring writer, I only got involved with this because it helped with World Building for D&D games, as Authors and Gamers, use the same kind of mental creativity tools when it comes to world building, and setting design. So it was very helpful when it came to designing my own campaigns.

    This also exposed something to me.. has anyone ever noticed that almost every DM plays a Wizard?

    Anyway, moving on.

    One of the people there was talking about Magic, and this was a published author, so you would think everyone would listen to them, and they said (Paraphrased) "When it comes to world building, the thing with magic is that is needs rules by which it behaves"

    The topic exploded, with many writers going back and forth on this issue.

    But the counter point could have been summed up as (paraphrased)  "What makes Magic, Magic, is the fact that is does not have rules that govern it, otherwise, it is simply a science"

    Both had solid points, as you can see.

    But, the main issue with Magic needing rules, was not that it could be controlled, like casting spells,. but that it did not break the reality of the world itself, where it was not a crutch by which a writer could do anything no matter how preposterous.. "Lone child faces an army coming to kill them.. and Poof.. Magic.. Wins" that takes away from the whole idea of a story. At the same time. how someone gets teleported from one realm to another to visit a dying wizard, adn told about an epic artifact, they must acquire, does not need to explained, as it is simply a tool to progress the story, and does not break the world.

    The same holds true for a D&D campaign. Some things do not need to be explained, they do not need to be set down by the rules, and they do not need to be governed, because they are simply put, plot tools, designed to build up the story and adventure, and move things along.

    Other times, when the players beat the dragon, that needs to follow rules, as breaking the reality of the game to offer a player an undeserved or instant win, pulls away from the enjoyment of the encounter and the adventure itself.

    The problem becomes when players want to argue over either of those rule situations.
    you could also point of whole if magic didn't have rules to follow then why use int to research and cast it? later sorcerers was made who used char, because they was naturals, so they didn't need to study magic, only to control, and comming down to it all things in life there is rules on it, not knowing the rules don't make it without then, with is what magic is, but in a way breaking some physical rules or bending rules to get the fact

    so based on this you not knowing the rules to a certain thing don't make it without rules to follow, a gm will follow a certain set of rules even if said rules was never mentioned to the players, with in pen and paper gms bending rules to keep people alive is not the same as breaking then, having home made rules to some things is normal to most gms

    I did some GMing in pen and paper (btw I play as a paladin not wizard :p) hell I even made (or tried to) make a whole system to play rpg, you follow rules then players will go down by stupid decisions or by shear bad luck dice, on this momment to keep things going you start to try help then to stay alive, things are even worse if your game setting is a low mana or no mana world, with there is no magic or passing god to save then
    AlBQuirkyGaladourn
    FOR HONOR, FOR FREEDOM.... and for some money.
  • ShinamiShinami Member UncommonPosts: 825
    I had my fun in second edition. 

    My favorite was that to me Armor Class made more sense. 
    I liked starting at 10 and then wearing armor to reduce the number, then having the difference applied to THAC0 (To Hit Armor Class 0). I also liked how proficiencies were optional. Later editions forced Feats/Proficiencies upon each character. 

    AD&D Second Edition also had conversion systems that made it compatible with original D&D campaigns, which was an added plus for me. There were also a lot of resources and back then there was also the Role Playing Gamers Association (RPGA) which I was a member. I would play frequently. 

    I also had fun making new character classes. 

    The largest complaint I had to 2nd Edition was that sheer amount of books one needed to buy to actually play the game. 

    You needed the following books on the minimum: 

    1) Players Handbook 
    2) Dungeon Masters Guide 
    3) Monster Compendium. 
    4) Character sheets (or make them yourself) 
    5) Either make your own campaign (or buy one) 

    and if you wanted anything decent you needed to buy the following books

    1) Class Books (like fighters guide or Rogue Guide) 
    2) Legends and Lore (A must-have for clerics) 
    3) Tome of Magic (A must-have for clerics and wizards) 
    4) Monster Compendiums 
    5) Race books (Dwarves, Elves, etc) 

    and these were to get an idea of how it all worked. 
    To be good at Dungeons and Dragons as I was a DM for many years and during that time made my own game universe I've written for many years with its own RPG system. However, Dungeon and Dragons and Star Wars were my first two Table Top RPGs. 

    Now for the thing I absolutely hated the most was in how Wizard Magic worked.

    Magic was Energy that was stored in the mind of the wizard, that was foreign to the wizard, but controlled. The spell was cast, and then the wizard would forget the spell and had to relearn it. Even worse was the entire "I am going to learn 2 fireballs" 

    I was like.....NO! 
    As Dungeon Master I made MP. 

    MP worked that the player would have a MAX MP equaling the total number of spells multiplied by their respecting spell levels. So for example, if a wizard at current level learn Level 1 x 5, Level 2 x 3, and Level 3 x 2, we would multiply those numbers, 1 x 5 = 5; 2z3 = 6; 3x2 = 6; 6 + 6 + 5 = 17 MP. 

    MP Recovery was added to Intelligence and Wisdom Attributes, and to gear and items and specific rules. None of that "Forget the spell once cast" BS that I hated so much! Not even in the Dungeons and Dragons movies did they ever follow that rule!

    Dungeons and Dragons was a game in which in the Dungeon Masters Manual told you that it was up to you to use existing rules and to also alter, modify, and create your own rule for the sake of gameplay. 

    I made many rules to speed up combat which eventually evolved into my own system. 


    GaladournAlBQuirky
Sign In or Register to comment.